Slashdot Mirror
Super Tuesday, McCain Leads Reps, Dems Undecided
Following the so called Super Tuesday primary mega bash yesterday, McCain has solidified a strong lead in the primary race over his rival Republicans. Things aren't so clear for the Democrats: while Clinton leads, the race is still too close to call.
I don't think California was counted yet. She'll probably have the hundred. Though I wish Obama did win.
Krugman is campaigning for Hillary, so it's not surprising that he'd try to confuse people about Hillary's mandatory health-care plan. The major difference is that with Hillary's plan, bureaucrats in Washington are going to decide how much you can "afford" and pull it out of your paycheck, pretending it's not a tax. Obama's plan is to work to make the coverage affordable, but people will get to choose on their own.
Krugman's response is little more than "but... but... Obama mandates care for children!" Yeah, he does, but there's a difference between children and responsible adults.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Superdelegate
They are the highest level elected officeholders and party officials, just not through the party primaries or caucuses. The idea is to have a say in the selection of candidates in line with the party objectives. Party activists at the lower ranks of the party would tend to select the most extreme candidate, who would ultimately lose to a more mainstream candidate.
http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3034
superdelegates.org
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
It's actually closer to the way the British House of Commons appoints party leaders. The Labour party's leadership is decided by a bizarre combination of Labour members of parliament (think congressmen), trade unions, and party members, except for this time when Gordon Brown succeded without any contest at all. The Tory party I think only poll their own members of parliament, but sometimes ask the party membership for their opinion in some kind of unofficial non-binding way.
The Lords are directly appointed by the government. The Queen was appointed by God (or by her ancestors hacking other people to death, which is kind of the same thing).
While I basically agree with you, I think it's important to realize that changing to proportional allocation of electors is also often against a state's self interest. Basically, when the state votes for president as a block it has much more power and is more likely to get candidate attention (and promises). This might not be immediately clear, but you can look here for a good explanation of what influence the electoral college (under the winner-takes-all system currently used in most states) has based on the Banzhaf power index. Another point is that in any state with a clear majority for one party, it is against the interests of their party to switch to proportional allocation of electors. The issue of party power might be resolved by making a pact among many states (with different party dominance) to do it, but you'd still be faced with the fact that it would simply make some states less powerful.
Still, you're correct that changing the electoral college is even less likely.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Woah, woah, woah!
McCain is the only Republican candidate that's actually tried hard to *do* something to oppose torture. He's was the author of several bills and amendments to ban torture, which faced strident opposition from the Bush administration. McCain was tortured himself, after all.
If you're going to slam the guy, don't lie about one of his well-known positions that define the differences between him and the alternatives.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
He's talking about NY. A lot of these candidates are considered to have more than one home state... somehow.